Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:14:39 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 19:10:26, stuart taylor wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 11:23:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 17, 2000 at 09:44:57, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2000 at 09:32:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 17, 2000 at 08:05:57, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 17, 2000 at 07:22:41, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I'm afraid I still feel that Junior could have come out ahead (instead of >>>>>>level)in this tournament by beating Bareev and Khalifman - and possibly by not >>>>>>losing with such apparent ease to Kramnik. Continuing the game against Anand >>>>>>might possibly have gained an extra half point as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that Amir has an aspiration to make his program demonstably better than >>>>>>Deep Blue (this certainly comes across in his interviews published on the >>>>>>Chessbase Website coverage of Dortmund (www.chessbase.com) before the Kramnik >>>>>>game). If so, as a (hopefully!) impartial member of the viewing public, I'm >>>>>>afraid to say that I've yet to be convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>>As evidence, I point firstly to the games against Bareev and Khalifman. On both >>>>>>occasions when Deep Blue '97 gained an advantage over Gary Kasparov (who's a >>>>>>better player than anyone at Dortmund was), it parlayed that advantage into >>>>>>victory - whilst Deep Junior twice failed conspicuously to "slam in the lamb". >>>>>> >>>>>>I would also point to the game against Khalifman. Here we see Deep Junior lose >>>>>>to a combination of blocked centre and king attack - classic anti computer >>>>>>methods which have both been well known for a long time. They work because, in >>>>>>this case, nothing short of truly massive search depth is going to help you to >>>>>>make the correct moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>However, for both king attack and blocked centre, Deep Blue '97 demonstrated >>>>>>that it's evaluation knowledge was able to adequately handle the challenge. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I guess that the evaluation of Deep Junior could do better if Deep Junior could >>>>>search the same number of nodes. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that Deep Junior is better than Deeper blue if you assume 200,000,000 >>>>>nodes per second for deep Junior. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>I believe pigs can fly. But only if you increase the density of the atmosphere >>>>by a factor of 10,000 or so. >>>> >>>>DB has two almost insurmountable advantages: (1) it is faster than anything is >>>>going to be for a _long_ time; (2) using special-purpose hardware they did >>>>everything in the eval that was suggested by GM players, because they could do >>>>so with no speed penalty. DJ and every other PC program has _many_ >>>>"concessions" in the evaluation due to speed considerations. DJ's king safety >>>>would fail if it was 1,000 times faster... because there are some things that >>>>speed won't help until we reach the point where the computer can see 30-50 plies >>>>into the future. You either understand the Stonewall (and its kin) or you get >>>>beat by it, regardless of how deep you can see. I don't claim to have solved >>>>this either, but I don't see Crafty losing Stonewall games on ICC today, where >>>>3 years ago it was getting killed by this attack, and my defense was to hack the >>>>book repeatedly. It will certainly lose one every now and then as my randomness >>>>(on ICC) will occasionally cause it to play a stonewall as black. But book >>>>learning closes that hole, and once out of book, it doesn't have great >>>>difficulty avoiding the problem pretty well. >>>> >>>>There are a couple of ICC "regulars" that are a problem for computers, >>>>cptnbluebear is one, and insight is another. cptnbluebear doesn't play crafty >>>>much any more because other programs are easier to 'stonewall'. Insight still >>>>plays a lot, but he _rarely_ wins. He seems to primarily play for draws, which >>>>are easier to do, but still very difficult to pull off. >>>> >>>>I've done this with special eval code, not with speed... and I have a long way >>>>to go myself... >>> >>>To Dr. Hyatt, So how far do you beleive it is possible to go without tremendous >>>speed? If software was maximised the most possible, could 1ghz. ever overtake >>>D.B.? or maybe 2 ghz? What is the potential that still hasn't been realised? >>>S.Taylor >> >> >>this is an old theoretical question. A similar one: what is the maximum >>bandwidth over a single piece of copper? Answer? 1 / signal-to-noise-ratio. >>If you get SN to 0.00, the bandwidth is infinite. But that is quite hard to >>do of course. :) >> >>same thing for chess engines. In theory, today's hardware ought to be fast >>enough. But the programming is hundreds of years behind what evolution has done >>to our "personal biological computer system" we all carry around. It will catch >>up at some point of course. >> >>As far as overtaking DB, that is another matter. Whatever commodity micro- >>processors can do, DB (or a new successor) can do 1,000 times faster, easily. >>So the hardware we use won't _ever_ be as good as the special purpose hardware >>that can be designed/built to handle a specific thing like chess. >> >>The current DB is going to be untouchable for at least another 5 years, maybe >>closer to 10. By then Hsu _could_ do something that would again be untouchable >>for another 5-10 years. The special-purpose vs general-purpose issue won't go >>away, ever, most likely. > >Atleast you seem to be conceding that PC software MIGHT overtake the latest >version of DB, due to better computing. I mean, it might start catching up a >little bit with our "personal biological computerized system", enough, even >before another 5 years. >S.Taylor I have _always_ conceded that micros will catch 1997 deep blue in 5-10 years, based only on raw hardware improvements. I think I have said that dozens of times here. Of course, a new DB-3 chip would spread that gap back to a factor of 1,000-2,000 times faster again... assuming anyone was interested in building the thing...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.